FCC Could, But Probably Won't, Do Anything About Net Neutrality

from the i-hear-you-but-i'm-not-listening dept

Michael Copps, one of the four current FCC commissioners, says that while the commission currently has the power to punish broadband providers who break network-neutrality principles, it needs to adopt stricter, more enforceable rules to protect content providers who don't want to pay the providers protection money. This stance from Copps contrasts greatly with that of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, whose no-regulation-is-good-regulation mantra (except when it's convenient, of course) helped kick off this whole mess by classifying DSL and cable modem networks as information services, meaning they no longer had to follow common carrier requirements -- like network neutrality. The dichotomy between the Democrat Copps' and the Republican Martin's views highlights the vast ideological disagreement on the issue, as well as the partisan split. But Martin's viewpoint that nothing good can come of regulation is flawed -- just ask the telcos that built their businesses on regulations that gave them monopoly protection and kept their would-be competitors at bay.

Neocommies UNITE!

Look at the recent spate of decency enforcement measures aimed at ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. Do you really think that industrial forces had anything to gain from censorship extension/more regulations?

By the way, business/corporate concerns didn't drive the fascists or the communists to starve millions of their citizens. It was for the good of "everyone" that those people had to die. Businesses had even less to do with the virtual world-wide ban of the insecticide DDT which costs 100s of millions of lives EVERY YEAR. Find something better or as good BEFORE you ban a life-saving product "for the good of everyone"!

Maybe instead of trying to wrest control of all-power government agencies for "the people", we should eliminate them altogether as unnecessary infringement on the freedom and rights our government was formed to protect.

flawed logic?

"But Martin's viewpoint that nothing good can come of regulation is flawed -- just ask the telcos that built their businesses on regulations that gave them monopoly protection and kept their would-be competitors at bay."

Please reexamine this argument. Martin's viewpoint isn't the only thing flawed here -- unless you are arguing that regulation creating and enforcing telecom monopolies is a good thing as well.

Re: Neocommies UNITE!

For the past couple of decades the FCC has swiftly and surely bowed to mass media owners by eliminating any meaningful media ownership restrictions. This has allowed media conglomerates to buy up huge tracts of viewer- and listenerships across the country. Not only do these policies erode the quality of the news that Americans receive, it can prove, and actually has proven, physically dangerous. Just look at what happened in Minot, ND in 2002. This massive deregulation has not been shown to benefit anyone but mass media ownership interests.

Re: flawed logic?

no regulation is good regulation

Well, I am against net neutrality. Their are extremely few examples of federal tech regulations helping innovation. Do you really think telecos could build a 2-tiered internet and force Google to pay? MS, Yahoo, and Google would build there ow net, the telecos would fold, and big 3 would buy the lines. The managment would just change hands, because the telecos wouldn't go ouside ad shred all the lines or something when they go under.

Re: no regulation is good regulation

Your right! Google could buy a backhoe and tear up the streets of every major american city to drop fiber. Or maybe they could establish airships all over the United States blasting down wifi, because we all know how realiable that is.

In a "free market" which does not exist in most markets in the United States your argument might work. However, since gov regulations created the bells and comcasts then we are stuck with oligopoly not a free open market.

You suck just like all you other newbs who know shXt about FXck my man.

Re: Re: no regulation is good regulation

wow - ''You suck just like all you other newbs who know shXt about FXck my man.'' Was that necessary? We all know eventually the govt was going to take away our internet somehow but really - stop complaining and start writing to your congressmen and women. Stop whining on blogs and DO something. Start a petition. COnsumer Reports is a great org that fights for this kind of BS - LOG on and send in your comments to your government through their site. I don't whine - I write - I petition I get involved... oh and flaming isn't the answer either.

wtf

I find it odd that everyone acts like this has not been happening for a decade or more. The Internet is not a free market. I guess everyone has forgotten the Internet was only created for government use in the first place. Only then did they gather support from educational institutions. It was never meant for public consumption.

Perhaps instead we should all be thankfully that it has lasted as is for as long as it has and move on with our lives. Things change. Before the Internet life went on and long after it shall continue. The Internet has made us lazy so perhaps it is truly in our best interest for the Internet as we know it to be a thing of the past. ;)

Re: wtf

Yeah, your right in fact lets add some other things to that list. Cars, TV, Radio, Anti-boitics in fact lets all go back to humping each other, eating bananas, and using advanced technologies like fire. Do you think before you type? Its not being lazy its efficiency and increasing our access to resources, I would never want to go back to life without the internet nor would you if you got your head out of the closet.